locke0479

locke0479 t1_j9w6mwu wrote

Reply to comment by itsNurf in The little things in CT by DreadnoughtPoo

But you stopped short of #4 which is what the other person is sharing. And I have to ask, how do you know what the reason is for pulling them over? Like you can make an assumption but unless you were in the car with them, how would you know why they were pulled over? Feels more likely it was speeding.

2

locke0479 t1_iybpjij wrote

Yup, and there’s no indication that execution does anything as a deterrent (which logically makes sense if you stop to think about it for a second; crimes are nearly always committed either without thinking of the consequences or with an expectation that they’ll get away with it, particularly at the level you have to reach to even be considering execution).

At the end of the day it’s a revenge thing. And I get it, fuck this guy. But revenge isn’t good enough if even one innocent person has been executed. It’s not “execute or let them wander the streets”, it’s “execution or they’re locked up the rest of their lives”.

5

locke0479 t1_iybp712 wrote

Because that’s not how anything works. Why is “only in the very specific instance of a mass shooter who has been caught on the scene and has been verified via cameras to be the shooter” going to be the only possible execution crime? It wouldn’t. As soon as you allow one it’s “what about…” and “but also these guys…”. This conversation right now is about how it should come back for a guy who isn’t a mass shooter (and for the record, this guy is an enormous piece of human garbage and I hope he suffers horrifically the rest of his miserable life). So now we’ve gone from “ mass shooters with direct evidence” to “well, this guy really sucks though, amiright???”.

And come on with the taxpayer thing. Seriously be honest with yourself, no bullshit…do you think your taxes change even one penny if this guy spends the next 50 years in prison until he dies, or if he is executed or dies before? If he drops dead of a heart attack right now and never needs to be imprisoned, do you think you’re gonna get a rebate on your taxes? They’ll just spend that relatively small amount of money on something else. The prison already exists. The prison employees are hired and paid for regardless of whether there’s 8,000 prisoners in CT or 8,001. The “cost to house a prisoner” ignores that a lot of those costs are being paid no matter how many individuals are imprisoned.

6

locke0479 t1_iybgu41 wrote

No, because as soon as you allow it for some people, it’s going to be allowed for others. Who gets to determine when someone is “100% guilty”? Lots of people that “confessed” turned out to be coerced confessions that were disproven by other evidence, but most would claim a confession is 100% guilt and thus okay to execute.

7